Comments on: Media Failure: Gates And Crowley Need To Personally Lead

By: thatvisionthing

thatvisionthing — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:06:07 +0000

Totally my favorite comment of this whole event, thank you, it was a delight to read. Now if you could just get Norman Lear to cast and produce it…

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:48:13 +0000

And as for Gates’ motivation, I am going to assume it was the same as that of any other conscientious, ethical person in the circumstances based on what Gates actually did. And that is that he cooperated with Crowley to – even beyond — the limits of his responsibility (he apparently did not object when Crowley illegally followed him into the house – he should have) and then stopped and protested when Crowley went beyond his authority, did not leave, and continued to treat him as a suspect even after Crowley had determined Gates’ right to be there. And frankly, if Gates chased Crowley out of the house shouting “yo mama,” I think that’s wonderful.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:14:58 +0000

One of the things that is so interesting and revealing about this event is that it is a kind of Katrina moment, different but also similar to the OJ Simpson moment, in the sense that a great wave of public discussion and reaction washes over the country and people are revealed and divided for their racial biases and assumptions that they didn’t even know they had. That’s one of the things about racial bias – people often don’t even know they have it.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:00:19 +0000

Crikey, this is all a little harsh. In the first place, I did not say that he intentionally got arrested, I said it is a salient possibility. Quite frankly, even if he did, I do not have a problem with that; it is his right as a form of civil protest. Heck, I might even commend him. The motivation is somewhat irrelevant though because it is an illega arrest under pretty much any set of facts near as I can tell.

Secondly, your horse is a bit high here because you have no better idea what Gates’ motivation was, and what the real dynamics of the situation were, than me or anybody else here unless you were there at the scene and inside Gates’ house, which I seriously doubt. The purpose of the thread was to engender a discussion, that is what people are doing; not everybody has to agree with you or stifle their thoughts.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:38:27 +0000

I would also point out re the despicable “intended to get arrested for the publicity” theory that Gates did not speak out about the arrest until some five or six days later, and then only after it was reported in the Harvard Crimson and elsewhere.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:12:13 +0000

I am absolutely shocked that you and Raven would make this absurd, disgusting assumption. Listen to yourselves. Jeesus. Already I was going to comment on Bmaz’ weird criticism of Dr. Gates, apparently based entirely on Sgt. Crowley’s self-serving, racist caricature of Dr. Gates’ behavior. I read “responsibility for escalation,” “petty posturing.” And then I come to this Limbaugh-like suggestion that Gates planned to get arrested for the publicity. Racist much? The man is a world-renowned scholar. Crowley’s behavior was aggressive, intimidating, insulting, illegal, and unprofessional from the moment he stepped on the porch. Gates was ill, exhausted, frail, and even frightened. “All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger,” he said of his response when Crowley appeared on his porch and demanded without explanation that he step outside. And yet you suspect Gates hoped to get arrested. Gates did nothing but stand up for his rights and our rights, despite being vastly the weaker and more vulnerable in the encounter. For that — and for the important discussion of just what those rights are — it seems a great many people don’t know — we should all be thankful.

I expect more from this blog.

By: Gerald

Gerald — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:52:24 +0000

Hmmm,

my comment was “Mr Obama addresses those words and indicates that he is sorry about them though not sorry for addressing the issue.”

You, Hmmm then say there was no apology, …, that Obama said “I helped to contribute to the ratcheting up…in my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically,..”

I never said apology, only said “indicates that he is sorry about the words.”

I think what I properly addressed Mr Obama’s statement.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:32:13 +0000

I think you will find there is more of an emphasis on rule of law here than on politics. But if you like getting mucked up that can be accommodated as well, but you should know, you may not notice it at first.

By: robspierre

robspierre — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:11:14 +0000

What I find appalling is the officer’s refusal to apologize. The man is [a] a public servant and [b] supposed to be a peace officer expert at confrontation. Surely he should know that the best thing a public servant can do to defuse a confrontation with a citizen is to apologize early and often? Whether or not the professor was loud or unreasonably angry is not the point–an officer should be expected to keep the peace, not escalate.

Based on a few of my own experiences, I doubt that racism has anything significant to do with this phenomenon. The problem is “policism”, the notion that police belong to some sort of superior class to which citizens owe deference. Those of us that are as close to “white” as any human being gets get harassed in much the same ways mmore often than anyone reports. Arrogant, cocksure policemen can’t admit they made a mistake and forget who pays them. The only reason more of us don’t get locked up is that most cops aren’t quite dumb enough to harass us when we are exhausted from travelling and locked out of our houses.

By: notaliberal

notaliberal — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:04:25 +0000

There’s a word for it: patronizing.